Ex parte Tanaka et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 1998

08068091 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 28, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte TADASHI TANAKA, MASAAKI SAKAMOTO
TOHRU KATO and YOSHIAKI SATO
________________
Appeal No. 95-3862
Application No. 08/068,0911
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KIMLIN, WEIFFENBACH and ELLIS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-16,
all the claims remaining in the present application. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A multi-layered bearing having superior load-resistance
comprising an aluminium base bearing alloy layer and a backing
Appeal No. 95-3862
Application No. 08/068,091
-2-
metal layer, said bearing alloy consisting essentially of, by
weight, 2-8% zinc, 0.1-8% silicon, 0.1-3% copper, 0.05-3%
magnesium and the balance of aluminium, wherein said multi-
layered bearing is a product of solution heat treatment at a
temperature of at least 450EC and artificial aging treatment at a
temperature of at most 250EC, and wherein said bearing alloy
layer has a hardness of at least Hv 71.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Mori 4,170,469 Oct. 9, 1979
Ogawa et al. (Ogawa) 4,786,340 Nov. 22, 1988
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 5,028,393 July 2, 1991
Faure 5,110,372 May 5, 1992
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a multi-layered
bearing comprising an aluminum base bearing alloy layer of the
recited composition and a backing metal layer. The multi-layered
bearing is the product of solution heat treatment and artificial
aging, and the bearing alloy layer has a hardness of at least
Hv 71.
Appealed claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mori or Tanaka in view of Ogawa or Faure.
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions advanced
by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we agree with
appellants that the claimed invention, considered as a whole,
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection.
Appeal No. 95-3862
Application No. 08/068,091
-3-
We agree with the examiner that the various claimed aluminum
base alloy compositions would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosures of Mori and
Tanaka. While appellants concede that Mori encompasses the
bearing alloy of appealed claim 2 and Tanaka encompasses the
bearing alloy of appealed claim 4, we disagree with appellants
that the claim language "consisting essentially of" precludes the
presence of certain additional elements disclosed by Mori and
Tanaka. For instance, whereas Tanaka discloses an alloy
containing lead and strontium, it is evident from appellants'
claims 2 and 3 that the inclusion of lead and strontium do not
materially affect the basic nature of appellants' aluminum base
alloy.
However, we concur with appellants that the applied prior
art fails to establish the obviousness of the claimed multi-
layered bearing that is produced by the claimed solution heat
treatment and artificial aging treatment. The primary references
of Mori and Tanaka, while disclosing a multi-layered bearing
comprising an aluminum base bearing alloy layer and a backing
metal layer, fail to disclose subjecting the multi-layered
bearing to the claimed solution heat treatment and artificial
aging treatment. Although Ogawa and Faure disclose the claimed
solution heat treatment and artificial aging treatment of an
Appeal No. 95-3862
Application No. 08/068,091
-4-
aluminum base alloy, the references fail to teach such treatments
for a multi-layered bearing comprising the claimed backing metal
layer, and, significantly, neither reference teaches or suggests
the substantial improvements in hardness and fatigue resistance
that are realized by the presently claimed multi-layered
bearings. Appellants' specification presents convincing data
that the presently claimed solution heat treatment and artificial
aging treatment result in significant improvements in hardness
and fatigue resistance. We note that bearings 6, 12 and 18 are
of the same composition but exhibit significant differences in
hardness and fatigue resistance due to their subjection to
different heat treatments. Also, the Rule 132 Declaration of
Masaaki Sakamoto, one of the present inventors, establishes that
specific alloys of Mori and Tanaka, the primary references,
realize a substantial increase in hardness and fatigue resistance
when subjected to the claimed solution heat treatment and
artificial aging treatment. We note that the examiner has
advanced no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have expected the improved results set forth in appellants'
specification and the Sakamoto declaration.
We do not subscribe to the examiner's position that "the
instant aging temperature reads on no aging or aging at room
temperature," since the claim language "at most 250EC" includes
Appeal No. 95-3862
Application No. 08/068,091
-5-
zero or room temperature as the lower limit (page 8 of Answer).
We say this because we agree with appellants that the claim
language "artificial aging treatment" in and of itself requires a
treatment temperature in excess of ambient.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3862
Application No. 08/068,091
-6-
Browdy and Neimark
419 Seventh St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004